Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 285 posts

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#51

Post by MortenK »

rdouble wrote: post #25
edent wrote: post #3

The original article - http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-huntin... Distraction free reading and without all the annoying cruft of Quartz. Fascinating use of "Big Data" to cut through the bullshit. Wonder if it will change anything. I suspect the "tough" interview plays well into a company's PR.

Is Google's HR data set really "Big Data" or just "data?" Seems like it would fit into a normal database. Or maybe even an unwieldy Excel spreadsheet.

Just data. Working with "big data" is just boring old business intelligence in 99.9% of the cases.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#52

Post by rorrr2 »

ig1 wrote: post #23
rorrr2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, the interviewers often judge how accurate your estimation is, and not the fact that you know (the highly flawed) Drake Equation. These estimates are completely useless in real life, because in real life nobody guesses how many drives you need for GMail, or how many gas stations there are in LA.

I'm not sure where you've worked, but doing resource estimation for projects has been pretty important for most greenfield projects I've worked on. It's also good for sanity testing, it's a useful skill to be able to spot that something is out by an order of magnitude as it can allow you to catch problems early on.

Data-backed estimation is completely different from random guesses you will make during an interview.

Not only that, even if your guesses are decent, multiplying them can drive you orders of magnitude in the wrong direction.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#53

Post by skrebbel »

hkmurakami wrote: post #44
skrebbel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does filter out the genius engineers who aren't also arrogant, doesn't it? (which might not be a problem)

earlier in the interview he talks about preferring avoiding false positives over missing out on false negatives, so this practice does fit into their philosophy.

I suspected so. Still, as a super-amazingly competent genius engineer with no self esteem, I hope not many companies follow their lead.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#54

Post by rjd »

mossplix wrote: post #15

So how useless exactly were they? As long as you are looking for a "right" answer not a correct one, they are a very good metric for testing problem solving skills.

I got off to a real bad footing in a job interview using a questions like that once. With a guy looking for a 'right' answer, and it didn't go down well when I challenged his assumption.

He asked how many plumbers worked in the city, to which I replied you could check the industry registry for qualified plumbers, you can probably filter them out by city. There was silence then I had the question clarified to how many 'plumbing businesses' where there not individual plumbers.

To which I replied you could get the company registrar office but it was impossible to calculate as so many plumbers work full time while also holding businesses of there own as free agents. A very unimpressed look came across the guys face and I was told there is a very simple way to find out and asked to try again.

I sat in silence for a 30 seconds or so trying to think of something that would be more thorough than the registry offices, I think offered a few alternatives like tax department records, government statistics office. All things I could think of that would keep fine grained data. But I could see the guy growing impatient with me so I stared at him and asked him what a better metric was than what I had offered.

After a few moments I was told the correct answer was to check the phone book, any practicing plumber business would be listed.

Startled but what seemed like a completely faulty answer I pointed out what seemed obvious to me... not every business needs to have a public listing... some deal directly as sub contractors ... some could be umbrella companies for subbies ... again some are free agents... some might use unlisted cellphones... not everyone is a legal company, not all plumbers where qualified. It was a terrible way to get a dataset you could rely on.

Angry swept across the guys face and I was told sternly I was wrong the data was perfectly suitable, onto the next question... which was all down hill from there as he didn't want to hear my answers, didn't challenge me back, just rip through the rest.

To this day I laugh when ever I think back to that interview. It was probably the most uncomfortable interview I've ever been in.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#55

Post by jzwinck »

rorrr2 wrote: post #12
Jabbles wrote: post #8

I don't understand people's problem with estimating. It's a useful skill. Perhaps it would be better if the questions actually related to technology, rather than golf balls - but the principle is the same. For instance - "how many hard drives does Gmail need?" requires a rough guess of how many users Gmail has (if you're interviewing at Google, you should know it's 1e8-1e9). How much space each one takes (probably no…

The problem is, the interviewers often judge how accurate your estimation is, and not the fact that you know (the highly flawed) Drake Equation. These estimates are completely useless in real life, because in real life nobody guesses how many drives you need for GMail, or how many gas stations there are in LA.

Just yesterday someone asked me whether a particular disk array would be the right size or not. I didn't have any particular number in mind beforehand, yet I was able to say that the proposal was oversized by a factor of five. If someone told me they had a sweet new application for gas stations in California, I would be ready to figure out how much money each installation would need to make to cover salaries for a programmer and a DBA, even if it's just a hallway conversation. It's OK to be a bit off; it's not good to have no idea.

Your point that interviewers read the wrong signals from candidates' responses is a very good one, but it's not specific to estimation questions. It applies as well to straight-up programming questions and probably a lot more.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#56

Post by DanBC »

rjd wrote: post #54
mossplix wrote: post #15

So how useless exactly were they? As long as you are looking for a "right" answer not a correct one, they are a very good metric for testing problem solving skills.

I got off to a real bad footing in a job interview using a questions like that once. With a guy looking for a 'right' answer, and it didn't go down well when I challenged his assumption. He asked how many plumbers worked in the city, to which I replied you could check the industry registry for qualified plumbers, you can probably filter them out by city. There was silence then I had the question clarified to how many…

So, is Google admitting the questions are hopeless, or are they saying that their interviewer's reactions to the answers to those questions are hopeless?

Because fixing interviews is harder than just working out hwat questions to ask.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#57

Post by skrebbel »

rorrr2 wrote: post #12
Jabbles wrote: post #8

I don't understand people's problem with estimating. It's a useful skill. Perhaps it would be better if the questions actually related to technology, rather than golf balls - but the principle is the same. For instance - "how many hard drives does Gmail need?" requires a rough guess of how many users Gmail has (if you're interviewing at Google, you should know it's 1e8-1e9). How much space each one takes (probably no…

The problem is, the interviewers often judge how accurate your estimation is, and not the fact that you know (the highly flawed) Drake Equation. These estimates are completely useless in real life, because in real life nobody guesses how many drives you need for GMail, or how many gas stations there are in LA.

You're a startup in the cheaper-fuel business. You work on the assumption that most of your users will be mostly going around a single city's metro area, which heavily impacts your UX design.

You now need to make decisions about UI (map or list? what's a good default map zoom level?) and infrastructure (how much gas station data will a single user need in a single request? how does that impact my storage?) and a whole lot of other places.

You need a nice representative metro area that first a realistic worst-case scenarion, say LA.

How is any of this unrealistic?

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#59

Post by rjd »

DanBC wrote: post #56
rjd wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got off to a real bad footing in a job interview using a questions like that once. With a guy looking for a 'right' answer, and it didn't go down well when I challenged his assumption. He asked how many plumbers worked in the city, to which I replied you could check the industry registry for qualified plumbers, you can probably filter them out by city. There was silence then I had the question clarified to how many…

So, is Google admitting the questions are hopeless, or are they saying that their interviewer's reactions to the answers to those questions are hopeless? Because fixing interviews is harder than just working out hwat questions to ask.

I dunno about google, but my experience was more copy cat behavior by someone that didn't get the purpose of it I think... maybe I was to blame as well as I pushed back expecting to be challenged more.. not just told I was wrong.

It ended up worse then useless for both of us involved.

Re: In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal

#60

Post by [deleted] »

lmm wrote: post #39
eternauta3k wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "read mathematics at Edinburgh"?

It's standard (or slightly pretentious) British English; I guess the US equivalent would be "majored in math at Edinburgh" (which would be equally incomprehensible to a Brit)

[deleted]
Post reply on HN